Advertisement

The final word on this case was said by WB at the very beginning: “Steve Vanderark has no rights in Harry Potter”.

Hm, this comes across as a feint. The lexicon book isn’t as much a creative writing piece as it is a structured reference work about an existing ethos.

This is sad, it appears that Steve has shown his true colors :(

It’s Stanford University Fair Use Project.

Wow I cannot even believe the gall of him to say that. If not for JKR there would be no Harry Potter so of course she has the rights to it. I hope he realizes that everyone this book would be marketed to, obviously HP fans, will not even be buying his book now. At least none of the true HP fans will. I am definitely behind JKR 100%.

Folks, if you are ever unfortunate to be involved in legal action, please remember the first rule: keep your mouth shut, let the lawyer do the talking, that’s why you them!

Melissa, again I salute your bravery in serving as the moderator of these threads!

wow.

Thats all I can say about steve.

What a jerk.

JO, all of us here at leaky support you, not Stupid Steve..!

Lindsay, please, refrain from the name calling. I get the emotion, just not the rest. :)

Steve, you’re not writing ABOUT the harry potter world! You’re writing THE harry potter world!!! She doens’t have the right to control everything written ABOUT it - she can’t control editiorials or anything, nor would I think she would want to - but she can prevent people who are copying and pasting her work to profit off of it from being successful! Come on, Steve, I know you’re smarter than this!!!

I agree with Steve’s point that Jo shouldn’t have complete control over everything written about Harry Potter. The only trouble with his argument is that Jo does not have, and is not really attempting to get complete control. She is perfectly supportive of other literature about harry, the fandom, essay.. etc.

I guess it really all comes down to what exactly is in Steve’s encyclopedia.

Did anybody else notice that before this whole fiasco, Mugglenet had an encyclopedia due to be published? The stopped that pretty quick though, ha.

As someone who is 100% supportive of creative freedom as well as an artist’s right ot their own work, it is difficult for me to place my feelings. WB is a massive company, and I’m not entirely sure I like that JKR is working with them. Refusing to publish a book is comparable to banning a book (very loosely, I know. Please don’t rip me apart!) On the other hand, Jo has worked incredibly hard on the Potter series, and backed by a giant company or not, it is common sense and basic human courtesy that she should maintain the final word on anything HP.

sigh

I have no idea.

I guess I’ll just say good luck to both sides, I hope neither of them is bitter and that they find some sort of resolution in this mess. Not hard feelings, guys.

It’s a tough decision.

Peace, Susie.

Steve’s arguments are NONSENSE!

When I read comments like “That’s quite a huge power grab on her part …”, I have to wonder who, in heaven’s name, is advising him?

WOW.

Steve has some audacity to say that JK is a “copyright hog” considering that this is the world that she has invented. While i’m also a creative artist, i sympathise with JK more because this protecting her rights as a writer and creator. I’m sorry that this is happening, and i’m very sad that this seems to be turning nastier and nastier as it progresses. I agree with KB Prez; i totally reacted the same way. Ugh. shakes head what a miserable situation. sigh

Well, any attempt to “choke creativity” should indeed be condemned. But, as we all can tell, there’s nothing creative about the Lexicon, just a recanting of Rowling’s content.

It’s pretty obvious that Mr. Nocera from The New York Times didn’t do his reseach.

Lauren, Steve didn’t call her a copyright hog,t he author of the NYT article did. I’m sorry if that’s not clear enough in the post and I’ll try and clarify. Steve said her attempts at the suit were a power grab, and constituted an attempt to choke those who attempt to “live off the creative work of others” (that might be a paraphrase.)

Susie, it’s not even loosely comparable to banning a book though, because the content of the book is not being banned at all. There would be no problem at all if Steve wanted to release the contents of the book somewhere like the internet where he could do so free of charge… oh, that’s right, it already IS available on the internet free of charge! And WB isn’t trying to shut down the website. It’s not that WB is trying to prevent the people of the world from reading the content of the book – we can already do so simply by logging onto the Lexicon. It’s the part where Steve makes money off of what isn’t his that WB/JKR has the problem with. Ahh, I’m sorry and I hope I dont’ sound at all like I’m biting your head off, but I just don’t understand the “freedom of speech” argument one bit because everything Steve’s saying in the book is already available. And yes, his publishers admit that the book is exactly like the website without any new (or creative) content.

Hahahahaha. ‘She invented Harry Potter and is, to all extents and purposes, Harry Potter and the universe itself! But how DARE she try to control it??? How DARE she? It’s mine, too! Because I’m a special snowflake~” Hahahaha. This is more than slightly reminiscent of those people who sue because the coffee is hot. If it didn’t involve or inconvenience someone I have a lot of respect for, I’d almost find it entertaining.

Aren’t there already tons of “Lord of the Rings” and “Chronicles of Narnia” encyclopedias? Aren’t they legal? What’s the difference?

I wonder what JKR would say if Steve offered to give all proceeds to charity…

Well, any attempt to “choke creativity” should indeed be condemned. But, as we all can tell, there’s nothing creative about the Lexicon, just a recanting re-telling of Rowling’s content in a different structure.

It’s pretty obvious that Mr. Nocera from The New York Times didn’t do his reseach.

(Sorry about my bad english, you can tell it’s not my primary language…)

“A Tight Grip Can Choke Creativity”

laughs Too bad JK Rowling doesn’t have a tight grip and that this book isn’t creative! I don’t even know why anyone is defending Steve, other than they see a big corporation versus a little publisher and assume that the little guy is the victim. I mean really, I think defending free speech is a wonderful thing but people writing editorials for such respectable papers as the New York Times should at least do their research first. Sigh.

This is all very, very frustrating to me. Sigh. I just…there are so many things I want to say…but I want to respect Melissa’s wishes since she does such a wonderful and admirable job herself of remaining civil and professional throughout this whole ordeal.

But I will say this...I do not think this is a "power grab" or Jo trying to "choke" creativity. Creativity?? What creativity? Uh, the creative ability to put scenes in sequential order and the ability to put someone ELSE'S story on your own lap top Sigh. This is not just directed at Steve...but at any person who has wanted to do this with another author's work. Jo has worked so very, very hard to get where she is now. She has, I'm sure, been through hell and back in her life. She deserves to have a say in her own CREATION. What Steve is attempting to do, in my opinion, is NOT creative freedom. It is just making his website that is FREE already, portable for what is it again....$25!

This is (the harry potter books), as she would put it, like one of her children. She has done so much for this world with her novels…as far as improving literacy among children and her unwavering generosity. She deserves to keep her work sacred as she sees fits. We stand by you Jo!!!!!!